Smt. Syeda Shahnur Ali, Member

The instant case is filed by one Sri Pinaki Ranjan Mal against M/s Electronics Centre, Sony service Centre, Haldia and Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, praying for a direction upon the OPs to refund the present market price of his TV and also for payment of compensation for a sum of Rs. 80,000/-.

It is the short case of the Complainant that he purchased one 24” LED TV of Sony brand from the OP No. 1 on 30-05-2015.  However, within few days the TV set developed various problems and so, necessary complaint was lodged with the OPs vide Service Request Nos. 25722663, 2646933.  Following such complaint, one service engineer visited the residence of the Complainant and attributed the problem to poor condition of the electric line. However, when complete overhaul of electric line did not usher in any improvement to the situation, service engineer deputed by the OPs replaced the mother board.  As ill luck would have it, such replacement did not have any salutary effect to the overall performance of the TV set and so the men of OPs took the defective set with them and returned it after a fortnight.  Allegedly, after some time, the same problem resurfaced compelling the Complainant to lodge a fresh complaint, but for some obscure reasons, the OPs this time started dragging their feet instead of repairing the TV set.  Hence, this case.

OP No. 3 contested the case on behalf of all the OPs by filing WV, whereby it denied all the material allegations of the complaint.  This OP strongly disputed the allegation of repeated complaints as articulated by the Complainant and instead asserted that, save and except one complaint on 23-07-2015, it has not received any complaint and further claimed that, on receipt of said complaint, after due inspection, it replaced the mounted board of the TV set and thus, resolved the problem to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant.  Since then, it has not received any service call from the side of the Complainant and so, there was no question of attending to service calls of the Complainant.  Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the case.

On the basis of such allegations and counter-claims, we are to decide whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief, or not.

Decision with reasons

It is claimed by the OP No. 3 that the Complainant made only one service call request on 23-07-2015 and it resolved the said complaint to the utmost satisfaction of the Complainant.  On the other hand, it is claimed by the Complainant that he made several service calls to the OPs and although they initially responded to such calls in a positive manner, but subsequently developed cold feet resulting which his numerous calls fallen in deaf ears.

On going through the petition of complaint we find that Complainant has mentioned the reference no. of only one service call in his petition of complaint and thus, in absence of cogent documentary proof or even concerned reference nos. to substantiate such claim, we are afraid, that the allegation of the Complainant cannot be taken at its face value. It is hard to believe that at the time of taking the TV, the OPs did not issue any receipt to the Complainant.  Most surprisingly, the Complainant has not furnished any documentary proof to prove his allegation. It also defies our conviction, if the service centre indeed did not extend due assistance to the Complainant, why he did not lodge official complaint with the OP No. 3.

The position of law is crystal clear – claimant should establish his claim by adducing documentary proof/immaculate evidence. As long as this elementary obligation is not discharged, it is futile to expect positive outcome out of any legal proceedings. 

Accordingly, Complainant is not entitled to any relief.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/52/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs, but without any order as to costs.